|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 747 article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|Boeing 747 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2008.|
|Current status: Featured article|
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated FA-class)|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
- 1 747-100 development problems
- 2 Maximum Speed
- 3 primary users?
- 4 Out of date reference
- 5 wrong model designations in File:747 Deliveries Timeline (malshayef 05-2010).jpg
- 6 Nippon-koku seifu sen'yōki (dedicated Japanese government aircraft)
- 7 "standard-length runways"
- 8 Aviation Project
- 9 Date fromat
- 10 Cargo containers
- 11 Boeing 747 already being replaced
- 12 747 AAC dead link update
- 13 New source from the Economist
- 14 Redirect of Jumbo jet
747-100 development problems
While working as a management consultant in the aviation industry, I heard from two clients of the extraordinary difficulties that Boeing had in achieving basic range/payload capability for their launch customers. The problem was allegedly caused by the inability of the JT9D engine to deliver the thrust required and contracted for. As a result Boeing had to work extra hard to find ways of reducing the empty weight of the aircraft, involving, for example, the first large-scale use of phenolic resin honeycomb material in the floor panels and the use of new aluminum alloys. The JT9D article doesn't cover the matter either. I am reasonably sure that one could get the facts from books about Pan-Am, the launch customer, and Boeing, with support from Aviation Week and Space Technology and some airline magazines. DCDuring (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The specifications table lists a maximum speed of Mach 0.89 for the 747-100/-200 and -300. The Type Certificate Data Sheet (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/29f8f1f15b2b08b786257479004b50e1/$FILE/A20WE.pdf) shows an MMO of Mach 0.92 for those models, the same as the -400. There is no reference as to where the 0.89 Mach number came from. I have no direct experience with these models of the 747, so am hesitant to make the edit, although I would normally trust the TCDS as gospel.
Can someone with direct experience chime in, or someone with more courage make the edit?
Obviously British Airways has the biggest 747 fleet but I am curious what qualifies KLM, United Airlines and Lufthansa as "primary users"? The 747 is way more common in asia and many asian airlines have a much bigger 747 fleet then they have. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Normal practice for airliners that are still in service is to list them by the size of the current fleet, when the type is retired they will be changed to the more significant or largest fleet during the types life. A bit of original research indicates this is the current fleet size list:
- British Airways 55
- Atlas Air 36
- Qantas 25
- United 24
- Lufthansa 22
- KLM 22
- Cathay Pacific 18
Out of date reference
Just an FYI, the very first reference links to a website that no longer exists. If it were any other reference I wouldn't bring it up, but it's been reference multiple times throughout the article 18:11 16/02/2013
wrong model designations in File:747 Deliveries Timeline (malshayef 05-2010).jpg
it seems to me that the model designations "740-300M" and "740-400M" shown in "File:747 Deliveries Timeline (malshayef 05-2010).jpg" are incorrect; should correctly read "747-300M" and "747-400M" respectively 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well spotted, I have removed the image as it didnt really add anything to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Nippon-koku seifu sen'yōki (dedicated Japanese government aircraft)
This is for Fnlayson in particular; I'll see if I can find some english language citations for the name and/or call signs. I should note that at least one early [1980s] Japanese origin source refers to them as "special-purpose government aircraft" (I'm not sure if that is a direct translation, but you can see it at the end of this message). In the meantime would it be alright for me to add an augmented version of the same text (please see below) in the Government, military and other variants section over in the Boeing 747-400 page?
- Nippon-koku seifu sen'yōki – Two modified JASDF 747-400 aircraft whose primary role is to transport the Emperor of Japan, members of his household, the Prime Minister, and other high ranking officials. The designation translates to 'dedicated Japanese government aircraft'. Other roles include emergency evacuations of Japanese citizens and/or the overseas deployment of Japan Self-Defense Forces personnel, in situations where commercial or friendly military/governmental transport (e.g. UN assigned aircraft) are not available.
Source mentioned in main body of message; Excerpt from "Purchase of Aircraft by Ministries and Agencies of the Japanese Government", Tokyo AEROSPACE JAPAN, December 1987 p 25:
"Ministries and agencies of the Japanese Government have selected the types of aircraft whose purchasing schedules were included in the supplementary budget and have entered into contracts for these aircraft with aircraft manufacturers. The contents of these contracts are shown below.
Government special-purpose aircraft. On 22 October the government announced that it had selected the Boeing 747-400 as a special-purpose government aircraft. The contents of this decision are as follows:
1. ¥387.58 billion was appropriated as the total contract authorization in the supplementary budget for fiscal 1987. Aircraft to be purchased by the government were studied by the Government Special-Purpose Aircraft Study Committee (chairman: Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Fujimori) and, eventually, it was decided by the committee that the Boeing 747-400 would be purchased as a special-purpose government aircraft.
2. The Boeing 747-400 was selected on the basis of a comprehensive assessment which showed that the Boeing 747-400 is a top high-performance aircraft, has excellent range, etc., and is flexible in operation because the airframe capacity is large. In addition, a sufficient support system can be expected.
3. In the future, the government intends to enter into a contract with Boeing Corporation (agent: C. Itoh & Co., Ltd.) as quickly as possible (probably in December) after it discusses detailed specifications for the aircraft with the company." (End of excerpt.)
What does "standard-length runways" mean? Is that an official term? Is there truly a standard somewhere or is the term "standard" being used improperly? If there is a precise specification of "standard-length runways" then what is that?
For example, the VC-25 is the military equivalent. The current aircraft usually used as Air Force One is a VC-25. The Van Nuys Airport in southern California has a runway that is 8,000 feet. I do not know how to determine if Air Force One could land at (and take off from) Van Nuys Airport. It would help to have a precise specification of what a 747 requires.
- Not all 747s are the same, they have different weights which change the runway requirements as well as the actual load on the day, any 747 figures are unlikely to apply to the VC-25s, does Boeing VC-25 mention runway length? MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about the detailed information on this page and I'm thinking that something like this should be done with the military aviation forums. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? What detailed information on which page? This article or the talk page? What "military aviation forums" are you referring too? WP is not a forum, and has nothing to do with forums on other sites. So what exactly are you even suggesting here? - BilCat (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, M-D-Y date format is used here because this is a US product and not military-related. The established date format should not be changed without good reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to any image of a 747F with cargo containers loaded? A photo or diagram would be fine. I want to show something in the Boeing RC-1 article, but can't find a thing. Everything I can find is pallets. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have not run across any. But there are container images at Unit load device, such as the one with containers in an A300 fuselage section that could be of general help. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Boeing 747 already being replaced
- Unlikely the 787 is a smaller and a replacement for the 767. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I found a page that appears to be the correct link for #176 ″"The Parasite Fighters". VectorSite, December 2009.″ http://www.airvectors.net/avparsit.html#m5 If someone can verify then it should be updated. I did not update it yet as I was not sure and this is my first wikipedia post.
- The link and info in cite have been updated. Thanks for the notice. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
New source from the Economist
Redirect of Jumbo jet
- Hi, I wanted to direct the attention of those who might have some input or better arguments than I to the discussion on the Talk:Jumbo jet redirect. There are several editors who feel strongly that jumbo jet primarily refers to all wide body aircraft, and do not support directing the term jumbo jet to either this page Boeing 747 or making it the disambiguation page which lists both the specific historical nickname for the 747, it's broader usage for wide body aircraft, and a few other "jumbo jet" named items. I am a lone voice, and I thought editors here might have an inherent interest. Marcinjeske (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)